What a weird section on professionalism. The social construct of professionalism re-enforces the neoliberal hegemony. Who the hell would want to do that?
No apologies needed. The internet gives people a platform to speak without the same(but not necessarily less) social accountability that exists in meatspace. The change in accountability implies a change in the access that participants have to social scripts. What we are experiencing is a mismatch of social script access between meatspace and the digital space enabled by novel digital mediums and increased connectivity.
That is the current contradiction. My bet is that neither the meatspace social construct nor the digital social construct wins. The resolution is in their synthesis. That probably means that some meatspace social norms change and some digital social norms change. Finally, any resistance to those changes in inherently reactionary.
Why would you conflate hostile foreign power and being at war? There is a difference here between necessary and sufficient conditions. The presence of hostile foreign powers with whom we are not at war is evidence enough.
First of all, my whole posting was tongue-in-cheek, which everyone else seems to have gotten.
Anyhow, does it makes sense that "A formal declaration of war" has somewhat more legal force than "An Atlantic headline writer declaring them a hostile foreign power" ?
The propagandist wants the opponent to be strong enough to be a threat but ideologically weak enough to defeat. That should be enough for anyone to pause and think hard about what's really going on.
My gut says that random trades have the same expected value as the underlying asset, but increased variance. I'm not a finperson, so learning why this could be wrong would be a learning opportunity.
> For decades we've been dealing with misinformation campaigns
Yes and no. Now that the labor for executing misinformation campaigns is outsourced and presented in a new way, the old wisdom of "don't trust the media", and "trust people you know" has become the new naïveté.
At least in the days of mass media, the centralization of messaging made it easy to identify and thus in some ways able to defend against. Now we're defending against brothers, sisters, aunts, and uncles who have been caught up in whatever nonsense happens to be most engaging. The commodification of social relations is rapidly progressing and there isn't any viable protection from it.
Hey Aaron, I think you're taking undue offense. There's nothing particularly "colonialist" about anything I've posted, and indeed "colonialism" isn't limited to indigenous peoples, which is kind of my point. I'm wondering what utility, if any, can there be in dividing the world into "indigenous" and "other". If anti-colonialism is the ax you'd like to grind, then why not divide the world into "colonized" and "other"? Why use "indigenous" as a proxy?
Why use utility an a measure to begin with? I think we're going to have to agree to disagree simply because of the number of assumptions being brought into this discussion.
Well, I’m not sure why we use “utility”—that seems like a profound question. But that’s the criterion we’ve used to choose our concepts practically forever, so why make the exception for this one concept?
I have to hand it to you. It's clear that you're adept at creating confusion around ideas by "just asking questions", and creating cohesion around fuzzy concepts by stating opinions as facts. I've participated in too many of these "debates" to know where this is headed. If you genuinely want educate yourself on these topics, there are resources to do so. I encourage you to seek these out.
When you argue like this, it betrays your inability to defend your position or even admit as much. And anyway, this isn't a high school debate with winners and losers, it's about understanding and advancing. The defensiveness is unnecessary.
indigenous and colonized are more or less synonyms, its not really a proxy of anything. Why specific word is used instead of another to refer to something is a question more suited for linguists. But if I had to make a guess, I'd venture to say that people prefer to use a term to describe themselves that doesn't center around the negatives.
I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think the Welsh or Irish are on anyone’s list of indigenous peoples, for example. Maybe “colonized” has some specific academic meaning that I’m misapplying to the Welsh, Irish, etc.
> People think that moving the moon is easier than changing the current economic model
Of course it is. All it takes is for someone to fund designing and deploying a very reliable mass driver, and then prevent it from being shut down or destroyed for some reason or other. That's a walk in the park compared to what politicians call a Tuesday.
Getting a lot of people to positively agree on something, when it's in the immediate self-interest of each of them to disagree, has always been the hardest task for humanity.
Unfortunately big changes are ahead of us (or our kids) no matter what we attempt to do to keep things from changing, including moving the moon. We better stop lying to ourselves and at least face the music. However, not all of these changes are bad though.
